MrWhitneyor. Mi mohis-
CONFIDENTIAL
A first (fulminating SPUS IS CONT draft). Dave Firl. +I ame richied not to reply at this Stage, Mr Ricketts was Gucered
April 1993
dor to leave any balb in our can't in
Case we
get political decision $ on 16/4.
Kevin Woodfield
HM Treasury Parliament Street London SW1P 3AG
My mohis- I have spower to Mr Foot he is carcemed about me whore
because he has just received same legal advice (attached) on 2 cases iuvoring pensioners who could take me spas regulanars to judicial renew (I think this is
right almaugh he didn't really explan Esqthe background). B He mums that They might now have a case & mat this might mean a rethinks an SPO). He was not in favour of me oprich that we could put spos aside if we acta,
decent pachrage because mis
new legal aduce makes it ever more important that somerrin shld be dare about spOD. HONG KONG PENSION SAFEGUARD might be morth you while
having divord with him as he Thank you for your letter of 31 March to Nigel Whitney who is currently on leave.
Mr fish will be in hand a 420 32 arceritable to see you
+ leter (leser may not with to become embroiled in SPOS)
on Weds am.
*
Subject to yr. views, useful to
word have c wiel Dave about way fwd passić. about the soas amendment. (Ave feper i Le wants to jam.
بالا
but I suggest you miglie confire in to "adenx").
It
didn't really seein been on
us replying at all (well We were disappointed to learn that you have moved away from predicted our earlier understanding of the way in which the sterling pension safeguard would operate. It is frustrating that after so many months of discussion, during which we had agreed that the sterling safeguard should protect the basic pension at whatever trigger level Ministers eventually agree upon, that you should now choose to introduce a new feature which could result in a considerable setback in our progress on this issue.
It seems extraordinary to introduce SPOS into the equation at this stage after the Foreign Secretary and the Chief Secretary had agreed to put it to one side for the time being, particularly without prior consultation at official
level.
The Foreign Secretary in his letter of 29 March has "taken on board" the full import of what the Chief Secretary intends" in the sense of registering the implications of this feature, but without prejudice to our acceptance or otherwise. As the Foreign Secretary points out this new proposal is not tenable because it would result in many policemen receiving even less protection than they would get if the safeguard applied only to the basic pension and would mean that their pensions were safeguarded at levels well below those of their UK counterparts. This last point seems to be of prime importance given the Chief Secretary's insistence throughout our discussions on the strict comparability of Hong Kong pensions with UK pensions.
The clear implications of your third paragraph are that the SPOS amendment should be considered now since you argue that
woodfield.reply/PENSIONS/bp
CONFIDENTIAL
Br 2014
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.